[prosario_2000]

3. The Abundance of Light Elements: The fallacy mentioned above regarding the existence of MBR, applies also to the presence of light elements in the universe. The reasoning is that the Big Bang should have happened because there is no other way to explain the presence of light elements in the universe. In fact, this is false. For example, Jean Audouze in France, has presented evidence that the cosmic rays generated by early stars colliding with background plasma present in the universe is enough to generate the light elements of deuterium, boron, lithium in the right amounts. Adouze’s results are right, regardless of the existence of a Big Bang. By the epistemological principle of Occam’s Razor (inference to the simplest explanation) the Big Bang Theory is unnecessary to explain the light elements. Furthermore, the Big Bang Theory in this aspect has been wrong about the amount of lithium in the universe because it underestimated many times its amount.

It is important to remind ourselves that the reasoning that led Big Bang theorists to state that heavy elements in the universe were formed as a result of the Big Bang explosion. However, Fred Hoyle showed them wrong: these heavy elements are created in stars and expelled to the universe once the stars blows up.

4. The Rate of the Expansion of the Universe: This is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Big Bang Theory, since it needs many ad hoc hypotheses (some of them extremely gross): dark energy, dark matter, inflation, ripples in space-time. Of course, scientists who favor the Big Bang can argue that if the amount of dark energy and dark matter are enough, then obviously the universe should be expanding the way it should. First, it was predicted that the amount of dark matter should be 90 to 99% of the universe, to hold everything together and explain the way the universe is expanding. One of the problems with the Big Bang is that according to the BBT view of light elements, is that the density of matter in the universe should not exceed a certain value. With the insertion of dark matter (in such huge amounts) as an ad hoc hypothesis, it exceeds the value that deuterium has established. If this is true, then the Big Bang should not have produced the amount of deuterium as it is observed in the universe. Of course, these falsation of these hypotheses point to the Big Bang be wrong.

However, since this scenario certainly seems to be wrong, they introduced the concept of non-baryonic matter, matter that is not composed of protons and neutrons. According to this theory, dark matter was composed of non-baryonic matter that no one knows what it is, no one has seen it, but it is not ordinary matter, so it does not enter into the equations of light elements. Of course, this weakens significantly the predictive value of the Big Bang Theory, since it does not provide in principle an empirical scenario where this can be confirmed. Since dark matter slows down the expansion of the universe, and we look for the length of time that the universe has existed should be shorter than just a linear expansion. This would mean that the universe would be about 8 billion years old. Of course, this cannot be true, since we know, from the evolution of stars, that many of them are 10 to 13 billion years old. How do you fit a 13 billion years old star in an 8 billion years old universe?

Also inflation was posited to solve certain problems with the Big Bang theory, inflation proposes a kind of cosmological constant, where the universe passed through exponential expansion. The problem is that the value of the cosmological constant made by inflation and the value of the cosmological constant found in the universe are simply extremely divergent by a factor of ten to the 108th power. For this reason, they introduced the concept of dark energy, which is some energy that no one knows what it is, but it creates a big repulsion in the universe, and causes it to accelerate the expansion. So right now we have the following scenario according to the Big Bang Theory: Now we have a universe that is 5% conventional matter, 25% dark matter and 70% of dark energy. In other words, 95% of the universe is matter and energy we don’t know at all, and probably will never know. Isn’t this a very big assumption to posit and untestable stuff to be the vast majority of the universe?

Another problem were the big structures found in the universe such as superclusters, and literally big empty space with little or no matter at all. In order to explain these structures, not only scientists went to dark matter for the rescue, but also posited early “relics” of the Big Bang such as ripples in space-time. After COBE was launched into space they discovered tiny fluctuations in the MBR that apparently confirmed their theories. However, what COBE found (and what later WMAP found) was that the fluctuations found are one hundred times smaller than were originally expected. They went to dark matter to explain why structures appear the way they do.

Plasma cosmology, on the other hand, is able to explain these fluctuations and these cosmic structures as filamentary structures, and the result of filamentary behavior of plasmas. These filament behavior never change regardless of size. These structures were predicted long before Gerard DeVancoleurs discovered that the universe was organized hierarchically (a fact unforseen by Big Bang Theorists).

If all of this is true, it seems that other cosmological models, such as plasma cosmology, are better at predicting certain phenomena. The Big Bang Theory has not had one successful real prediction. In the best of cases, it has had successful postdictions. I’m not saying that scientists should end the Big Bang theory as a research program, but they, at least, must show more humility and recognize that their theory is not as solid as they claim it to be.

[prosario_2000]

I do not favor the Big Bang Theory, but I don’t tend to be overly aggressive against it. For example, I think that the unfair assumption that scientists adopt the Big Bang because it was formulated by a priest and reminds us of Genesis. I also dismiss the accusation that the Big Bang says that the universe came “out of nothing”. In reality, Big Bang theorists adopt the point of view that the universe sprang from a singularity (and that’s not “nothing”).

Also I might add that I’m not in “principle” against the Big Bang Theory. From a philosophical standpoint, it can be viewed as a metaphysical research program (in the Popperian sense). A metaphysical research program is a defined conceptual framework within a paradigm that can serve as basis for theories, laws and hypotheses. However, I do not consider the Big Bang Theory as a theory properly speaking. Why? Ideally (not in every single case), formulated theories must have predictive value (posited laws, given certain conditions, must predict certain phenomena); it should be confirmed by experience; and the formulated theory must avoid ad hoc hypotheses as much as possible. I might add that we have to consider theories should have real predictions, not postdictions (“predictions” formulated on the basis of already known phenomena). Postdictions are not worthless, but theories with real predictions have more worth. For example, in terms of postdictions, the Newtonian theory of gravity could predict the orbits of all the planets known in Newton’s time (except Mercury), but it also let scientists predict the existence of other planets with accuracy (Uranus and Neptune).

Unfortunately, the Big Bang Theory has little or no predictive value, and depends greatly on ad hoc hypotheses (sometimes gross ones). Let’s look at the presumed predictions made by the theory.

1. The Hubble Expansion: This is a case of postdiction. Edwin Hubble found a correlation between the apparent brightness of spiral nebulae (galaxies) and their spectral redshift. Since he discovered that these spiral nebulae were galaxies, and that the lines of the spectrum were moving to red, some concluded that galaxies were getting further and further away from us. The Big Bang Theory, already formulated by Lema

[prosario_2000]

Hi JesterX in some areas we agree. However, I disagree with you regarding cattle, since the prices of both milk and meat are increasing significantly, at least here. Recently there have been a series of struggles with government for milk companies to be able to increase their prices (milk prices are regulated in Puerto Rico). Maybe in the future this thing will be alleviated, but prices of food are increasing all over the world. Recently, 60 Minutes (if I remember correctly) showed how it is seriously affecting the poor’s purchase of food.

There is another aspect of this debate which will have to be explored, and that is if all of that food supply will eventually be sold to the poor at cheap price (this would be the inevitable result of the surplus you are talking about). However, will corporations provide sell all this food world wide at very cheap price. An example of this is precisely milk. There is a surplus of milk world-wide, milk that could be sold in a very cheap price. For companies to keep their earnings, they have to artificially create a scarcity of milk and literally “throw it away”, which is environmentally harmful. Some countries even pay farmers not to produce milk. If we add to this artificial prices to the increasing cost of feeding cattle, we have a very high price just to guarantee corporate profits. Will this happen also to the surplus of food you are talking about? I’ll check out the information in those websites, and I thank you for them. I hope you understand why I’m skeptical.

About the emissions of vehicles, if you read the end of my article you will see that I’m proposing Focus Fusion along electric cars as solution to this problem. The issue with electric cars is that we already have the technology, and electric cars have been produced once, to be artificially removed from the market by car companies, perhaps under the heavy influence of oil corporations. Electric cars do not emit anything at all, they only charge electricity and that’s it. It only costs the equivalent of 40 cents a gallon. So, even if the internal combustion engine will not disappear overnight, we are in a situation where the technology is here and now. You can learn more from this in Plug-In America and other websites, and also I highly recommend the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car. It is now in Google Video if you want to watch it.

[prosario_2000]

I do agree that the history of technology is full of “good enough” solutions becoming dominant. And, of course, I’m not asking for any technology to be perfect. Focus Fusion is not a perfect technology, but it is very close to the ideal technology we need for the future. Bad news is that when a corporation tells me that it has the best solution, I have to be skeptical and see if it’s true. Corporations are not good when it comes to telling the truth, especially when they want to market their own technologies. That does not mean a corporation a priori tells a lie, but after so much stories of their lies the healthy approach would be to be skeptical, and to wait for people for and against the technology to propose their points of view so I can decide for sure.

About disposing radioactive waste, of course, is one of those elements I want to be sure is going to be what Toshiba says is going to be. Radioactive waste is, despite everything, radioactive waste, and it is harmful in many ways. The ideal technology should not produce radioactive waste. That’s why I favor Focus Fusion because it is a fusion technology that leaves no radioactive waste at all. You only produce ions of Helium nuclei, and that’s it. The rest is converted to huge amounts of energy converted into electricity.

My worry is that if such a technology like Toshiba’s will be available in the future, that people will rely on it and rest on it, while not looking for better alternatives. Society, unfortunately, acts on inertia, which is what has happened with oil and other fuels.

[prosario_2000]

Of course, like with every news that is “too good to be true”, I have to wait until I see enthusiastic people going for it, see the arguments of people who are against it, and see if some objective study can tell us more precisely what it does. Of course, the questions I have are: will it truly be cost effective? and will it produce radioactive waste in some way?

[prosario_2000]

First, maintain the myspace webpage. I’ve asked to be added a long time ago, and still no response.

Secondly, be careful who asks you to join. Usually people who have pictures of themselves are trustworthy, and can join. Also people who have filled their profiles properly are trustworthy. Be careful if a specific person who asks to be added has only one picture of him or herself. Watch out for spam. Don’t click on unwanted spam for any reason whatsoever. If people see posts with spam that come from your account, change the password. Have the blog up to date with the most recent news.

That’s all that came up for now. If I have further advice, I’ll tell you.

[prosario_2000]

The person who asked this question does not know that physical technology cannot be open-sourced. Unfortunately, some people don’t know the difference between the economics of ideas and expressions and the economics of physical objects.

Physical technology like focus fusion depends greatly on resources that are inherently finite. For example, if I give you a book, you will have the book and I will not have it with me anymore. Also, physical technology means expenses in trying to create it, to maintain it, to solve its problems, to replace pieces, and so on. Inevitably, since this is physical wealth and physical wealth is limited, the value of such means depends greatly on the amount of physical objects that will make focus fusion possible and the cost of labor that takes to build the focus fusion device, needless to say the cost of labor for the technicians who would maintain it. So, it does not matter how you build your technology, someone will always have to pay for it. Maybe individuals will pay, maybe the state will pay, but someone will always have to pay.

I’m an advocate for free software (“free” in the sense of “free speech”, not “free beer”): software people are free to access the source code, to copy, to modify, and to redistribute in its original or modified form. Software is also technology, but it is different from physical technology. It is the kind of technology that is limitless. Anyone can take a piece of software and copy it ad-nauseam, and no one will ever lose access to it. In essence, when I give you a digital file, let’s say an eBook, I can give you a copy of the eBook, and I’ll never lose mine. This will never happen with a physical book. Free software, and open source software, is possible in this sense, because people have free access to software, an essentially abstract technology.

That’s why the question above confuses both kinds of technology, as if you can make technology open source. Maybe you can make the specifications free, but never the physical technology itself … unless we realize Star Trek’s dream of inventing the replicator.

[Author]

Posts